A ‘Joke’ from Rick Warren

Well at least “I was hacked!” is a break from “Hey, can’t you people take a joke?” 
You know, break up the disingenuous evasions once in a while. Variety is the spice of strife and all that.

WTF!?  Is Rick Warren attending skeptic/atheist conferences now?  Sounds like some of the drivel in our neck of the woods recently.

Maybe it’s me, but I didn’t take Warren’s “joke” that way at all. To me, he (I mean his “hacker”) seemed to be saying something similar to a point I tried to explore with my Braveheart Question (http://www.dangeroustalk.net/?p=2100). 

I am a supervisor on a leading Q&A website.
Whenever I warn someone about posting nonsense the most common response I get is “My brother did it.”

 You asked a question about a specific situation and why we treat it differently from other scenarios. Warren made a statement that, while intended as a joke, at the very least showed obliviousness and arrogance towards women on the issue.

The fact he’s now lying about having written it tells us all we need to know about his motives. Even he thinks it was indefensible.

No, it’s ok – I get it.

It wasn’t clear to me that we are strictly talking about workplace harassment.

I was giving the benefit of the doubt to Rick Warren.

Mea culpa.

 “If that’s true, then you know who to blame for your ban.” 😛

I was a member of a writing group on Yahoo with a specialized theme. One day, someone posted a link to a piece of dribble that a non-member had put up on another website, as an example of what not to do. That writer, despite being absolutely terrible, had a sycophantic following. One told him that his work was being criticized somewhere, and he joined the Yahoo group and immediately began posting screamy rants in defense of his work for about two weeks.

Then he suddenly claimed that he’d been hacked and hadn’t been writing any of that. So he was saying that someone who meant him harm had been writing, in his style*, in defense of his work, every day for two weeks. AND THE GROUP BELIEVED HIM. He then collaborated with his snitch buddy for months to divide the group, got the “favored” people to join a different group and abandon the first one, wrecking it… and then he abandoned those dimwits who followed him. And they kept believing his story that it hadn’t even been him who joined the group in the first place.

Why would anyone fall for that?

*As I pointed out, if his phantom hacker could imitate his style that well, that meant said hacker was a better writer than he was and we should probably ask him to come back.

If he was hacked i suspect tha the messages posted on his accound would be about a closet and him getting out of it.

Well, God is a pretty serious troll.

“Kill your son! No, not really. But you were gonna do it, weren’t ya?”

“Gays must be murdered! No, not really. Well maybe. Or not. Try to guess!”

“Pi equals 3! LOL, try to draw a circle now, fucktards!”

Not only is this not the kind of thing a hacker would post, but it’s also not the frequency. You get Rick Warren’s password, and you send ONE tweet?  C’mon Rick- oh, I was just about to compare our intelligence to that of his congregation.  Bad logic Rich.  But really, what does he think, we’re five?

 I don’t know his intentions, but I didn’t take his comment that way. I took it to say that if someone hits on you and they are cute, then you would consider it flirting, but if they are unattractive to you, you would probably consider it harassment. There maybe context here that I am not aware of. But one of the implications of my Braveheart question is that because Mel Gibson was considered attractive, his actions were seen as flirting, but if he was a creepy looking person, those same actions could reasonably be considered creepy. It seems to me that it is all in the eye of the person being hit on. But I could be wrong. 

Context, context, context. Night clubs & bars are socially acceptable places to hit on people & get shot down or not. Harassment usually isn’t an issue there. When someone is talking about harassment, I assume they’re referring to the workplace, in which case it’s not appropriate to be seriously flirting, whether you or the subject are attractive or not.

a little too much jesus blood, eh?

The context of Rick Warren’s tweet wasn’t given here – which is the reason for my comment.

But as I said in reply to Coytonose, I accept that the context that Kate Donovan is describing and in all likelihood Rick Warren was tweeting about is “workplace and casual social scenarios”.  In which case it is unacceptable – in any circumstances.

 What!?
peter g

 I’m unfamiliar with Bill Mather’s work.  Could you cite some examples for me?

Hitting on someone in the workplace isn’t necessarily harassment either. There’s a confusing ground between clearly harassment and clearly not (part of the reason companies and universities have detailed harassment policies). Politely asking someone on a date, one time, taking no for an answer if it’s given, when that person doesn’t report to you, is generally not considered harassment (nor should it be, in my opinion).

My point is there’s a gray area, and I actually do believe the attractiveness of the proposer does move the line a little on what is considered harassment and what isn’t. This is very different from saying “harassment is okay if you’re hot” – I’m saying the very definition of harassment is a function of attractiveness at the margins of what may or may not be considered harassment.

Many workplaces don’t have a harassment policy nearly as strict as what you’re proposing. Indeed, many places really only rule out relationships between people where one reports to another. You can argue this should be otherwise, but it’s not correct to assume it is.

All the time. Pretty much all he does is lie and distort things. 

What what?

And yet nobody can ever come up with a distinction between flirting and harassment without using either word.

My assumption – and it is an assumption, with all that implies – is that the issue is workplace and casual social flirting/harassment, because that’s usually where the problem lies.

Looking at it again, I can see how Warren could be taken to be joking about settings where flirting is expected, but given who and what he is, it seems unlikely.

 I just can’t help but read that in a sultry voice. Stupid brain. *facepalms*

I think you missed my point. My point isn’t about physical attractiveness. If you are not attractive to someone because they are creepy to you, then you are not attractive to them. If someone is not creepy to you and you feel an attraction toward them and they do the same behavior, you are going to react differently. That’s all I’m saying and it is the most obvious thing in the world.

 I agree.

In real life an ugly person is more likely to get accused of harassment than an attractive one. 
It shouldn’t be that way, but it is. 

> sexual harassment is wrong, full stop.

Isn’t this a meaningless assertion? It would have some value only if we had a clear, objective definition of what you’re condemning.

For instance, we have general agreement on what it means to dance the twist. So “dancing the twist is wrong, full stop” is a statement you may agree or disagree with, but the statement is at least coherent. On the other hand, “being a jerk is wrong, full stop” is gibberish, because everyone has different ideas about what it means to be a jerk.

The exact same actions will be interpreted as harassment by some people in some situations, and as flirting by other people in other situations. It’s not at all helpful to pretend that we can apply absolutist, “fundamentalist” rules like “sexual harassment is wrong” without recognizing that the phrase itself is subjective.

“Sexual harassment is wrong, full stop” falls into the error of pretending that there are absolute rules of behavior, of right and wrong, in this matter… when in fact there’s a huge diversity of different views by different people in different situations, regarding what constitutes “flirting” vs “harassment.”

http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

C’mon, it’s not like he has a history of being a misogynist!

He has since taken that photo down. Why? People thought he meant the wife was being abused? Aw, you’re wrong. Except, this is the way other men took it…

http://shortarmguy.blogspot.ca/2011/02/when-male-cant-stand-it-anymore.html

I’m guessing the difference is context, which I believe is true of most societal norms.

I think it more likely that his joke is that attractiveness is the only real contex when it comes to sexual harrasement.

Well, harrassment is a sticky issue and we’d need to know the particulars, e.g. touching, suggestive remarks, etc. But I do know from my own experience of girls & women who dressed and made themselves up in ways that they themselves described as hot or sexy, and then when some guy merely gave them the eye for a  bit (no touching, suggestive remarks, etc.) they’d either take offence or not, depending on whether the guy looked “cute” (hot, cool, or like a hunk, etc. ) or “ugly” (like a nerd, loser, greaseball, etc.). So there is some truth in the remark, though the hacking claim is of course bullshit.

Maybe because it comes from a pastor?  I would expect this kind of clowning from a plumber or a dry-waller (no offense to them).  But a pastor has a responsibility to his public image.  Like a politician, they MUST be careful abouthe their public speech, because so many people listen and take what they say to heart.

And if it turns out that this was a hack job, then obviously SOMEONE out there agrees, because they knew that this was NOT the sort of thing that should go on a pastor’s public account.

Or with your maternal unit. Maybe? (Schmuck)

Mather? I seem to recall Jerry Mathers, you know, “The Beaver”. What has he done now? I’ve been reading this blog for many months now and I don’t recall any mention of the Beave. But that doesn’t mean he hasn’t done something to offend some group out there. 

lol everybody says they were hacked when they fuck up. It gets old.

I’m amused that nearly the next item after this in my newsreader was this AmazingSuperPowers strip:
http://www.amazingsuperpowers.com/2012/06/hacked/

A little clarification:
Flirting is typically glances, smiles, asking out for drinks or coffee, giving compliments, possibly hugging, etc.
Harassment is continuing this flirting after the person has turned you down or after they are visibly uncomfortable. Harassment is repetitive and excessive. If someone turns down an offer to go out, it is harassment for the other person to keep asking and not take no for an answer. If one person gives a compliment and the other looks uncomfortable, it is harassment if the person continues to compliment them in the same manner.
Flirting becomes harassment when the flirting is no longer mutual. I’m flattered if someone finds me attractive and wants to pursue some sort of relationship, but I have every right to say no to them. If they don’t respect my right to decline a date, a compliment, or a hug, it’s doubtful they would respect my right to decline sex.

As far as attractiveness goes, I’ve been flirted with and harassed by unattractive men. I can tell the difference. I’ve been flirted with and harassed by attractive men. I can tell the difference.
When I turn down someone of any level of attractiveness who is flirting with me, I feel sympathy because I know that it takes guts and now they’re disappointed or embarrassed. When I turn down someone of any level of attractiveness who won’t take no for an answer and is harassing me, I feel scared and creeped out because of the complete lack of respect they have for me. I feel unsafe because I don’t know how far they are willing to take things.

The vast majority of people (outside the Amish and certain Sikh sects) really believe that assault is never justified, even to prevent a greater harm. But at least someone who makes that claim is saying something coherent, since we have a consensus about what “assault” means. “Harassment” on the other hand is open to wide subjective interpretations.

You’re being flippant in trying to dismiss a complex issue by refusing to examine the meaning of the words you’re using. You’re being flippant by relying on absolutist, fundamentalist slogans, rather using reason to communicate clearly.

It is obviously true that an attractive person or an unattractive person can both harass someone, but I think the point that the person making the comment (whoever it was) was trying to make is that people are more likely to view what an unattractive person does as harassment than they would if an attractive person did the same thing. The fact is that a person’s attractiveness does have an effect on how people respond to them in all parts of life, including flirting.

Well I would agree that an attractive person’s flirting will have a better chance of succeeding than if they were unattractive. But if the flirting is accepted, then it’s not harassment. An unattractive person may be more likely to be turned down, but it’s not harassment unless they keep going after the person. Actually, I find that attractive guys are more likely to harass because they’re not as used to being turned down. They think that because they are attractive, anyone should want to be with them. Most awkward or unattractive guys I know just get disappointed, but they don’t keep trying.

More couples meet at work than anywhere else. Your standard is at odds with reality.

It’s actually not that subjective when it’s written into law or employee handbooks.  flirting turns into harassment when the victim defines xir boundaries and those boundaries are repeatedly ignored. Flirting does not turn into harassment merely because an unattractive person is trying to flirt.

Yes, you are right. I incorrectly said “harassment” when I really meant “seen as creepy”. What I was trying to say was that if an attractive person and an unattractive person flirt in similar ways, the unattractive person is more likely to accused of being creepy.

 It means people react differently to the same behaviour by people whom they find attractive versus those they don’t.

The popularity of Mr. Warren is due to the perfect worldliness of his message, which is only half the picture…and he offers no view or door to the Big Picture.

I don’t hug people I don’t know.  Shaking hands works for me.  I understand that’s cultural and in many cultures I’d be kissing cheeks.  But in the US I keep my arms to myself and I thank others to do the same until we know each other fairly well.

Four possibilities:

She says ‘no’ and means ‘no’ and you take it as ‘no’.  No sex, no harm.

She says ‘no’ and means ‘no’ and you take it as ‘yes’.  Hey, you’re a rapist.

She says ‘no’ and means ‘yes’ and you take it as ‘no’.  Maybe sex later if you get your signals worked out, maybe not.

She says ‘no’ and means ‘yes’ and you take it as ‘yes’.  Hey, sex for you!

You will notice that if you assume ‘no’, no harm is done other than that you maybe have no sex or delayed sex.  But if you assume ‘yes’, you run the very real risk of raping someone.  Even if you assume that ‘no’ sometimes means yes, I highly doubt it’s anything other than a very small minority, and if she really means yes, she’ll change it to ‘yes’ quickly.

So the real question is, how much do you want to be a rapist?